2015 SS and CF

[HitInAPinch]

DANG!  When's training camp opening??? 

[jimmer]

JJ Hardy sucks at defense, according to the Twins, and Suzuki is really good at it, so you'll forgive me, I hope, if I am skeptical of their ability to judge defense. 

forgot to mention that according the Ryan, our soon to be 40 year old RF is also good on defense. :-)

[Squirrel]

DANG!  When's training camp opening??? 

Pitchers and catchers report Feb. 22; first workout, Feb. 23.

Full squad reports Feb. 27; first full-squad workout, Feb. 28.

 

[nicksaviking]

So if three unlikely things happen? You don't KNOW any of those things at the end of spring training, right? 

 

 

I don't know, I'm putting it on the Twins to make the assumption.  If the organization thinks Santana is the most likely candidate to be playing SS everyday 2-3+ years from now they should keep him there.  If they see it a different way, give him a chance to be a Jack of all Trades.

[jimmer]

I don't know, I'm putting it on the Twins to make the assumption.  If organization thinks Santana is the most likely candidate to be playing SS everyday 2-3+ years from now they should keep him there.  If they see it a different way, give him a chance to be a Jack of all Trades.

I know this is a bit off topic but hopefully one can see a bit of a tie in when we talk about jack of all trades :-)

 

So, back in the day, there were 4 man rotations and those pitchers went deeper into games. There were less relievers on teams then too and those guys went longer. Now most teams have a 25 man roster in which at least half are pitchers.  Isn't it time for MLB to evolve and consider going to a 26 or 27 man active roster?

[bird]

JJ Hardy sucks at defense, according to the Twins, and Suzuki is really good at it, so you'll forgive me, I hope, if I am skeptical of their ability to judge defense. 

Understandable. However, Dozier and Plouffe present some decent evidence that they can coach improvement. 

 

Fangraphs thinks that Plouffe was the 4th-best 3B in baseball last year. So if you'll forgive me, I'm skeptical of THEIR ability to judge defense.

[bird]

forgot to mention that according the Ryan, our soon to be 40 year old RF is also good on defense. :-)

OK, you guys win. You're absolutely right. Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about. He should have cited some defensive metrics in response to the question about Torii's defense and trashed him. 

 

But I missed the part about him say his 40 year old RF is GOOD on defense. :-)

[jimmer]

And I completely agree that Plouffe's defense was very good.  

 

Having not watched enough of other 29 team's 3Bs play for the sole purpose of evaluating 3B defense, I wouldn't know how he compared against them to say he was the 4th best defensive 3B. I doubt any one person can honestly say they can either which is why sites like Fangraphs are so valuable. I definitely think he played very well and I trust that more than I trust that Hunter is still a quality defender out there in RF.  He was horrible when I watched him and I watched the Tigers a lot.

[jimmer]

OK, you guys win. You're absolutely right. Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about. He should have cited some defensive metrics in response to the question about Torii's defense and trashed him. 

 

But I missed the part about him say his 40 year old RF is GOOD on defense. :-)

“I saw him, I think, maybe seven games or so (in 2014),” Twins general manager Terry Ryan said Wednesday. “His defense for me was more than adequate. He’s not the type of guy that you’re going to say, ‘Oh, he can go over there and play center for a length of time,’ but I would guarantee you he could go out and play center field for a couple days and you wouldn’t really miss too much.”

 

Good, more than adequate, I guess it's a matter of semantics. I think adequate is pretty much the same as okay or good. Mirriam-Webster dictionary says adequate means : 'good enough : of a quality that is good or acceptable : of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable.' 

 

And then add the 'more than' part to make it more than adequate as he said, and the part where he says he could go play CF and not really miss much, I think it's fair to say he said he's at least good. Again, though, semantics.

 

Then you add 'more than adequate' to , seems he still thinks he's good.

 

'“When you look at the rankings of the defensive side of the game, you shake your head many times. I’m not saying a lot of them aren’t accurate, because some of them are, but a lot of them aren’t accurate either.'

 

I like how he says that he isn't saying a lot of the rankings aren't accurate and then later in the same sentence says that a lot of them aren't accurate.

[bird]

The Twins don't regard Hunter as a "quality defender". They look at things on balance and have probably concluded that the things they value in him justify taking the chance that he can at least be close to average for a half-year or so.

 

They don't regard Suzuki as a premier defender. And they never told us he was. They didn't think Plouffe was good at first. JJ Hardy? Rumors had it they wanted him gone for reasons other than his defense.

 

So this notion that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to defense is frankly absurd to me.

 

Advanced statistical analysis has undoubtedly highlighted and measured the ramifications of good vs. bad defense, and the Twins were clearly and stubbornly late in understanding and adopting this, and probably still are. But that doesn't mean they don't know good and bad defensive play when they see it.

 

Was Hunter a better defender in 2014 than the stats show? Would you as a GM say differently if you had decided you could put up with sub-par defense for a short timeframe?

 

Back to Santana, I really believe they pretty much know what they have in him. He improved his play in CF rapidly, did he not?

[bird]

Jimmer, I think you and I would have very similar perceptions about the quality of Hunter's defense. The metrics would tend to support our perception. Why would anyone think the eyeballs put on him by the Twins would be less discerning than ours? That seems to me to be hyper-critical.

 

So yes, Ryan's comments should be regarded in context, with proper semantical license.

[ashbury]

I'm skeptical of Eduardo Escobar.  I don't think one quality year proves he's a legitimate starting player for sure.

I'm with you on this.  I was on the bandwagon last year to give him a shot in preference to Florimon, but that's a very low bar and I'm still not convinced he wouldn't wear down as a day-in day-out player.  His usage last year was frequent but I'd have to ask Gardenhire whether his chances were picked to play to his strengths or whether he was thrown into the tough pitcher matchups when another player would have been worse.  I'm not down on Escobar (though he had an unfortunate game playing short in one of the few I've seen him in person), exactly, but skeptical seems just about the right word.  I think Santana has better upside.

[Brandon]

The only part of Hunters defense is going to be range.  He can run routes and has a strong arm so that is why his defense will be adequate its not like he's patrolling a much larger RF like in Detroit which would have a bigger negative impact.  He is not the best defensive RF either but with the offense and our lack of better options as he was one of the best options out there.  So comparatively speaking we did real good to get Hunter.

 

As far as SS goes.  I am not going to complain one way or the other who starts as both Santana and Escobar deserve starting jobs and I think it will come down to whether or not Hicks can show enough in spring to handle CF.  The good news here is we have the depth to handle either an injury or a player who is not yet ready to come up. 

 

I wouldn't be opposed to getting Burgoise or whatever the correct spelling is from St Louis to compete for the 4th OF spot. 

[TheLeviathan]

Jimmer, I think you and I would have very similar perceptions about the quality of Hunter's defense. The metrics would tend to support our perception. Why would anyone think the eyeballs put on him by the Twins would be less discerning than ours? That seems to me to be hyper-critical.

 

So yes, Ryan's comments should be regarded in context, with proper semantical license.

Sorry, I'm not one to always bash the Twins but they've sort of lost my trust on defense. Their whole roster setup alone is evidence o'plenty they arent thinking straight. Chalk me up as someone that took Ryan as being awfully positive in his endorsement of Hunters defense, far more than I'm comfortable with at least.

[Mike Sixel]

Clearly, to me anyway, I am exaggerating. I think the Twins know more about all of baseball than I do. That does not mean, however, i trust them as much as I'd like in all areas. Defense, lately especially, is one of those areas.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I don't think we can accurately assume Danny is the SS of the future and has to play there to start 2015.  It's more like the ambiguous... "it depends". 

 

Could he be the long-term answer at SS?  Sure, but...

...it depends on Escobar, who seems to have earned more time at SS based on 2014 and could very well turn out to be the solution there.

...it depends on Buxton, who while he is an elite prospect, isn't our CF just yet.

...it depends on Hicks, who hasn't had extended success at AAA or any in MLB to clearly deserve additional MLB playing time just yet.

...it depends on Schafer, who might be a decent 4th OF but hasn't shown starter-type production really ever.

...and most importantly, it depends on Danny Santana.

 

It seems pretty clear that Danny Santana is the best solution in CF to start 2015.  As long as he's getting MLB playing time to keep learning, I can live with not knowing whether or not that's his permanent position.  He hasn't even proven yet that he's a permanent MLBer.

the sad part is, the most important part seems to be the least emphasized. This team is best served by Santana at SS and Escobar at utility. Escobar can play three positions quite well, he will get his at bats to play 3-4 games per week. Santana on the other hand has much more potential and plays one position potentially very very well, and another position better than summer rec leaguers.

[Dman]

I like Esco at short at least to start the year.  I think if he gets off to a good start then maybe he won't be seen by other teams as just a utility player but a legitimate shortstop. If he is seen as a legitimate shortstop then there is better trade value to be had.  I think it pays to give him a chance to increase his value to the Twins or in trade.  

 

That being said I don't see him as the future long term shortstop for the Twins but I like what he brings to the team right now.  At the very least he is an excellent Utility player but I think he can be a solid every day shortstop.  Will be interesting to see how things play out.

[JB_Iowa]

Winter Caravan, tonight:

 

Rhett Bollinger ‏@RhettBollinger  · 2m2 minutes ago 
Ryan said center field remains a question mark and reiterated that Danny Santana will compete for the SS job along with Eduardo Escobar.

[TheLeviathan]

Winter Caravan, tonight:

 

Rhett Bollinger ‏@RhettBollinger  · 2m2 minutes ago 

Ryan said center field remains a question mark and reiterated that Danny Santana will compete for the SS job along with Eduardo Escobar.

 

If it's still a question mark, I'd really like to see another piece of competition join what has so far been assembled.

[stringer bell]

Let's be realistic here. Neither Escobar or Santana is really proven and either or both could regress significantly and this whole discussion would be moot. That said, based on performance, both Escobar and Santana should be in the lineup and that means Santana in center field.

 

To those who say Escobar will get his playing time, remember that he would be backing up the three best position players from last year and two of them hit from Esco's stronger side.

[markos]

If it's still a question mark, I'd really like to see another piece of competition join what has so far been assembled.

 

I would have supported adding Rasmus for 1yr/$8MM to compete for the CF position.

[jay]

This team is best served by Santana at SS and Escobar at utility. Escobar can play three positions quite well, he will get his at bats to play 3-4 games per week. Santana on the other hand has much more potential and plays one position potentially very very well, and another position better than summer rec leaguers.

 

I don't see how that is decided already.  They both still have a lot to prove.  Escobar needs to prove more of what he showed in 2014.  Danny needs to prove his insane BABIP and low BB% can be consistent production.

 

Best way to find out?  Keep them both in the lineup every day -- certainly over the alternative option of Schafer and/or Hicks in CF.

 

I think the situation will play itself out pretty quickly based on their results in 2015.  If or when one of them is struggling to the point of not deserving every day play, we can hope that Buxton is knocking on the door for CF and the other sticks at SS.

[ashbury]

I would have supported adding Rasmus for 1yr/$8MM to compete for the CF position.

Do you believe in predestination?  Because I have a pretty strong opinion on how such a competition would have come out, at that price.